Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about complaint handling. This is because further investigation will not lead to a different outcome and any injustice that may have occurred is not significant enough to justify our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council repeatedly failed to respond to his complaint. He also says different officers have taken inconsistent and conflicting positions regarding the status and handling of his complaint. He says this failure has prevented independent and senior review, denying proper scrutiny of his concerns about night working during roadworks.
2. He says the response he received:

• Fails to answer key questions
• Relies on general statements about processes
• Contains factual inaccuracies about work undertaken on a specific night
• Does not provide clear outcomes or adequate remedies

3. Mr X does not think the issues raised have been properly investigated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
9. The Council issued a final response to Mr X’s complaint and apologised for the delay and confusion in the complaint process. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and I do not consider the Council’s handling of the complaint caused Mr X significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing the complaint.
10. The Council has addressed Mr X’s specific complaints about the work in question. Where there have been failings, it has apologised and made recommendations for service improvements. While I appreciate that Mr X says he would like a more detailed and specific response, it is unlikely that further investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome.
11. Mr X says the Council’s response include inaccurate information about the type of roadworks undertaken on a specific day. If this is the case, it is unlikely that the injustice caused is sufficient to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation will not lead to a different outcome and any injustice that may have occurred is not significant enough to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman